The ‘good food’ movement transforms food labeling

What do we mean by the Good Food Movement? “The Food Movement. In a nutshell, encompasses the many people across America who have become passionately engaged with how their food is made and where it comes from”. Steve Armstrong | Oct 01, 2018

The reason we’re having this conversation is because like the terms ‘natural’ and ‘healthy, ‘good food’ and ‘clean labels’ mean different things to different people. It truly is a case of the value being in the eye of the beholder. ‘

Food manufacturers and regulatory agencies find this approach chaotic, That’s because they don’t really have any guidelines for translating consumer expectations about a food product onto its corresponding label,

That’s why there’s talk about a new “Process Label” As food production and consumption has become more complex, consumers have driven demand for food certifications. We have organic, GMO Free, Gluten Free, Cruelty Free and the list of 626 types of food certification labels goes on. You don’t need a scorecard, you need an app.

Consumers may not always know what’s in their best interest when it comes to convenience eating, but there are certainly enough of them to make traditional food brands like Campbell’s crumble and reorganize.

They and other processed food giants are finding it increasingly difficult to source new supply chains or retool processes to match the speed and depth of consumer self and planetary interests.

Steve Armstrong takes us on a deep dive into the morass of complexities confronting producers, regulators and consumers. Caveat Emptor!

According a new report from Label Insight and the Food Marketing Institute (FMI), grocery shoppers exhibit loyalty to products that create deeper relationships through information exchange,.

The Transparency Imperative report found that shoppers increasingly demand transparency and a closer connection to their food, so much so that 75% are more likely to switch to a brand that provides more in-depth product information, beyond what’s provided on the physical label. When shoppers were asked the same question in 2016 in a similar study by Label Insight, just 39% agreed they would switch brands.

Environmental Working Group Database Reveals 16,000 Foods That May Be Packaged with BPA

WASHINGTON––For consumers who want to avoid bisphenol A, EWG unveiled an easily searchable database of more than 16,000 food and beverage items that may come in cans, bottles or jars containing the hormone-disrupting chemical, better known as BPA. The list was compiled from a little-known food industry inventory and is now available at EWG’s Food Scores database.

BPA acts like estrogen in the body and is especially dangerous for pregnant women and children in critical stages of development. Independent scientific studies link it to cancer, infertility, diabetes, obesity and brain, nerve and heart disorders, and it’s just been listed by California as a chemical known to cause reproductive problems.

“No other industry in the world is more adept at marketing products to its customers than food and beverage companies––except apparently when it comes to informing them about the possible presence of a toxic chemical linked to hormone disruption and cancer,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “So we decided to give them a little help in making their own data accessible. Our new database shines a light on just how pervasive BPA is in our food system, and will help Americans navigate the supermarket armed with more information.”

Most concern about BPA has focused on its use in plastic bottles and canned food linings. But the voluminous list of products brought to light by EWG shows that Americans are exposed to BPA in food packaging far more widely than previously known. The array of products from 926 brands includes:

The lids of glass jars for baby food, pickles, jelly, salsa and other condiments;

California officials added the hormone disrupting chemical to the Proposition 65 list, which requires warnings on products with listed chemicals. The state allowed instead for generic warning signs at checkout registers that don’t name specific products.

Food companies set up a website with a list of products, but made little effort to publicize it. The website is a chaotic jumble––incomplete, inconsistent, poorly organized and not searchable.

EWG downloaded files from the industry website, which were in a variety of non-compatible formats, then extracted the brand names, product descriptions and barcodes. The data was then matched against information in Food Scores, and the matches were hand-reviewed to ensure accuracy.

Despite the mounting evidence of BPA’s health risks at very low doses, federal regulation is lagging. EWG urges regulators and lawmakers at the state and federal levels to regulators, federal and state lawmakers to look at the evidence and reassess BPA’s use in the U.S. food supply.

you need to make healthy choices

Get Nutrition News Online All Year Long

Our readers are self aware and focused on a full, vital and abundant life.

They realize the importance of their health for a rich and rewarding life.

They pay attention to what works. They make connections between actions and results.

For 40 years our readers, people just like you, have turned to Nutrition News for

advertising free, easy to understand information about

healthy foods and nutritional supplements.

We review, edit and publish compelling content about nutritional research and trends in optimal health.

We showcase, share and support health outreach initiatives of all kinds.

The inquiry into optimal health is naturally engaging.

We make healthy behaviors easy and fun.

Two Regulations Just To Explain Food Claims Used On Product Labels

How much of a bigger share from the Universe Of Food could we get if we talked more about the benefits of what it is we’re trying to regulate.

The most direct path to an intended outcome is to regulate for what you want. Seems like we have too many competing interests to agree on a simple, true story.

Food has been pretty cool for a long time now. We’re starting to realize just how important it really is. If they’re going through this much trouble in Europe, no wonder, clean, simple food is catching on and the packaged goods market is scrambling to keep up.

European Commission published two regulations just to explain and determine approved claims to be used in food products labels, and one regulation regarding the consumer protection and detailed information about the label content. The regulations are better described below:

This isn’t meant to put anyone to sleep.It’s a sign that food and nutrition are becoming so important that multiple interests are keenly aware of how much power consumers are beginning to exert when it comes to food choices. An educated consumer is a healthy consumer. We don’t need a tracker to know where that leads.

Nutritional Claim Conditions Applying

LOW ENERGY A claim that a food is low in energy, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product does not contain more than 40 kcal (170 kJ)/100 g for solids or more than 20 kcal (80 kJ)/100 ml for liquids. For table-top sweeteners the limit of 4 kcal (17 kJ)/portion, with equivalent sweetening properties to 6 g of sucrose (approximately one teaspoon of sucrose), applies.

ENERGY-REDUCED A claim that a food is energy-reduced, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the energy value is reduced by at least 30 %, with an indication of the characteristic(s) which make(s) the food reduced in its total energy value.

ENERGY-FREE A claim that a food is energy-free, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product does not contain more than 4 kcal (17 kJ)/100 ml. For table-top sweeteners the limit of 0,4 kcal (1,7 kJ)/portion, with equivalent sweetening properties to 6 g of sucrose (approximately one teaspoon of sucrose), applies.

SOURCE OF (NAME OF VITAMIN/S) AND/OR (NAME OF MINERAL/S) A claim that a food is a source of vitamins and/or minerals, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product contains at least a significant amount as defined in the Annex to Directive 90/496/EEC or an amount provided for by derogations granted according to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to foods (1).

HIGH (NAME OF VITAMIN/S) AND/OR (NAME OF MINERAL/S) A claim that a food is high in vitamins and/or minerals, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product contains at least twice the value of ‘source of (NAME OF VITAMIN/S) and/or (NAME OF MINERAL/S)’.

CONTAINS (NAME OF THE NUTRIENT OR OTHER SUBSTANCE) A claim that a food contains a nutrient or another substance, for which specific conditions are not laid down in this Regulation, or any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product complies with all the applicable provisions of this Regulation, and in particular Article 5. For vitamins and minerals the conditions of the claim ‘source of’ shall apply.

INCREASED (NAME OF THE NUTRIENT) A claim stating that the content in one or more nutrients, other than vitamins and minerals, has been increased, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product meets the conditions for the claim ‘source of’ and the increase in content is at least 30 % compared to a similar product.

REDUCED (NAME OF THE NUTRIENT) A claim stating that the content in one or more nutrients has been reduced, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the reduction in content is at least 30 % compared to a similar product, except for micronutrients where a 10 % difference in the reference values as set in Council Directive 90/496/EEC shall be acceptable and for sodium, or the equivalent value for salt, where a 25 % difference shall be acceptable.

can be used in advertising and promotional materials,

protected by the First Amendment and New York state law.

This sets a significant precedent.

A federal appeals court found that opinions about scientific studies,

at least when two private parties are involved in cases involving the Lanham Act,

is protected free speech.

If you say that a food is healthy and may help protect against heart disease, diabetes, or arthritis,

your words have magically changed that food into a drug.

And, guess what, that’s illegal.

Now you’ve created an illegal drug and that’s a crime

Free Speech Win For Scientific Conclusions in Federal Court

So why after all these years have we not shared all that great research about how food and nutrition can impact public health, access to food and opportunity as well as workforce development? Where are we today? Take a look at the disruption in our food sector. Amazon buying Whole Foods and thousands of small scale rural and urban growers building local food systems.

In this case, the manufacturer of a lung surfactant—a detergent-like agent that reduces the surface tension of the liquid film covering the inner lining of the lung’s small air sacs (alveoli) to help keep lungs from collapsing and help patients breathe better—brought a false advertising suit against a competitor.

The lawsuit alleged that the competitor paid for research designed to show that the competitor’s product was superior; that the findings were false and deceptive; and that the competitor disseminated those findings through an article published in a scientific journal and through promotional material citing the article’s conclusions.

The plaintiff didn’t claim that the competitor distorted the article’s findings, but that the findings themselves were inaccurate, and by publishing them, the plaintiffs suffered damage.

The main question was whether the defendant’s statements about the study were false and misleading under the Lanham Act, which is the primary federal trademark law in the US (the court also looked at this under NY state law).

They didn’t consider the question of whether the study findings themselves were false—only whether their statements about the study were false or misleading. The panel ruled against the plaintiff and found that the defendant did not misrepresent the research findings, and ruled the defendant’s statements to be scientific “opinion,” not fact, and therefore protected speech under the First Amendment.

This sets a significant precedent. A federal appeals court found that opinions about scientific studies, at least when two private parties are involved in cases involving the Lanham Act, is protected free speech.

Increasingly, the FTC appears to be applying the FDA’s pharmaceutical approach toward all health claims, including those for food or supplements, via consent decrees, as we discussed last year. These consent decrees are requiring manufacturers to obtain the FDA’s approval of any health claims prior to making them in advertising, and are insisting on a standard of double random controlled studies. In effect, the FTC seems to be doing what the FDA itself would like to do but is barred from doing. It seems to be an end-run around FDA law.

Given this background of increasing government censorship of science, this latest court ruling is very welcome. Companies cannot afford the millions of dollars needed to take a natural, non-patentable product through the FDA drug approval process in order to establish health claims. However, there is a lot of valid scientific literature explaining benefits of natural products, and companies should be able to use it for advertising purposes to inform the public without threat of fines or even jail.

This was the logic behind our push for Free Speech About Science (FSAS). A bill to reintroduce the Free Speech About Science Act is currently being redrafted. We will keep you posted as things. A resurrection is long overdue.

Is The FDA Losing It’s Mind?

Here’s an example from recent history that speaks to how far certain interests will go to separate us from our food. Before any science came along to validate the idea that food is the key driver to human health and development.

Why is it that after the scientific validation for nutrition, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, as the building blocks for all life, and that they comprise our food, why wouldn’t that story be worth shouting from the rooftops?

What if the foods we all eat got to tell it’s nutritional bona fides as medicine? Or, at the very least, beneficial and highly recommended for health and wellness. Thanks to CathyBurt at TimberJay.com for the alert on the FDA losing it’s mind.

The FDA Wants To Make Cherries, Walnuts Into Illegal Drugs

The FDA has sent a warning letter to the president and CEO of Diamond Foods stating that the firm’s packages of shelled walnuts are “in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”. Why? Because Diamond Foods dared to list some of the health benefits of walnuts on its website. Health benefits which have been scientifically researched and proven. The FDA says that the walnuts are being “promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation and treatment of disease”.

In other words, if you say that a food is healthy and may help protect against heart disease, diabetes, or arthritis, your words have magically changed that food into a drug. And, guess what, that’s illegal. Now you’ve created an illegal drug and that’s a crime

Common sense alone should tell you that walnuts, cherries, pomegranates and green tea are foods, not drugs.

Even though potato chips are mostly a deep fried snack food, with no scientifically proven health benefits, the FDA has no problem with FritoLay listing on its website some of what they claim are the health benefits of potato chips. We all know that carbohydrates fried in fat and covered with salt are just not healthy to eat. Plus they definitely won’t give you the GMO Free certification to go along with all their other nutritional needs products. Can anyone say “Gluten Free” ?

This certainly seems like a FDA double standard and it is just not acceptable for a government agency to disregard its own mission of educating the public and promoting health.

The Free Speech about Science Act (HR 4913) was a bipartisan bill introduced into the House of Representatives on March 23, 2010. This legislation protects basic free speech rights, ends censorship of science and enables the natural foods and health products community to share peer-reviewed scientific findings with the public. The bill had the potential to educate the public about the real science behind natural health. This would have enabled the public to have access to credible information that they can use to make wise dietary choices. It died. It was reintroduced and it died again.

Just let us know within 30 days.

We’ll refund your money,

No questions asked.

You keep the Report.

USDA Allows Genetically Engineered Alfalfa Resistant To Roundup

A short time ago the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it has agreed to allow Forage Genetics International (FGI) to begin commercial planting of its genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa which has been designed to tolerate Monsanto’s herbicide known as Roundup.

This comes as no surprise to the organic community but what is most distressing is that FGI will be allowed to conduct commercial planting of this new GE crop without any federal requirements to prevent the contamination of non GE alfalfa fields.

The impact of this ruling is far reaching to organic farmers across the board. The legislated organic standards prohibit any presence of GE material in organic crops. This makes perfect sense since consumers who demand organic produce have a right to be protected against GE contamination. But yet, federal authorities continue to allow GE crops to proliferate unchecked.

It’s a serious issue and not just for organic farmers. It was found by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that cross pollination between GE and non-GE crops is occurring. This finding opens up the very real possibility that our consumable crops are also being contaminated by pharmaceutical based DNA. What does that mean? For the past decade, big pharmaceutical companies have been genetically modifying plant crops to produce drugs. But as stated earlier, there are no regulations to protect against the possible contamination of non-GE crops by nearby GE crops.

Let me provide a superb example outlined by UCS. Let’s say a big pharma is growing corn with the ability to produce a drug such as a growth hormone. The pollen from this GE crop is carried through the air pollinating nearby non-GE corn destined for human consumption. The farmer of the non-GE corn harvests his seeds some of which are now genetically modified. These seeds are sold to a farmer who then grows the corn for human consumption not knowing that some of the corn is actually GE corn. Some of this GE corn might have the genetic sequence for growth hormone production or might actually have growth hormone in the corn kernels. The consumer then purchases this corn and is unwittingly contaminating themselves and their family with a pharmaceutical drug.

This is a very real possibility yet there are zero regulations in place to protect against this type of contamination.

Monsanto has a market cap of $40 billion and did $10.5 billion in sales in fiscal year 2010. They are big, they are powerful and they have used their power very aggressively against anti-GMO activists.

But the bottom line is organic produce has grown from $1 billion in 1990 to approximately $23 billion today. Individuals such as you and I have spoken loud and clear. We want organic produce.

But the disconcerting issue is that if Monsanto continues to get its way, organic production may become compromised. If we want to protect our right to choose, we must stand up and be heard. We must say no to the unchecked proliferation of GE crops. Will you make your voice heard?

If you want to join the growing movement against GE crops then go take a look at the Organic Consumers Association campaign here: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/. They are looking for volunteers to help spread the word to legislators that we want the right to choose and that ability to choose must start with proper labeling of produce.

After all, if foods do not have to be labelled as GE, how can you choose to say no to GE foods?

That’s why Alberta farmers are working to establish a GM-Free alfalfa zone. in the Peace River region.

Adrian Desbarats, the author, has a passionate desire for balance between nature and human needs at all levels. A biologist, he started Fashion and Earth to provide families with earth friendly, stylish fashions as another option to add to their sustainable life styles. If you wish to learn more about eco friendly clothing then visit Fashion and Earth at:

Genetically Engineered Salmon Has Reached The Dinner Table.

This thanks to our friends at Nature News. AquaBounty Technologies, the company in Maynard, Massachusetts, that developed the fish, announced on 4 August that it has sold some 4.5 tonnes of its hotly debated product to customers in Canada.

The fish, a variety of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), is engineered to grow faster than its non-genetically modified counterpart, reaching market size in roughly half the time — about 18 months. AquaBounty sold its first commercial batch at market price: US$5.30 per pound ($11.70 per kilogram), says Ron Stotish, the company’s chief executive. He would not disclose who bought it.

Related stories

AquaBounty raised the fish in tanks in a small facility in Panama. It plans to ramp up production by expanding a site on Canada’s Prince Edward Island, where local authorities gave the green light for construction in June. In the same month, the company also acquired a fish farm in Albany, Indiana; it awaits the nod from US regulators to begin production there.

The sale of the fish follows a long, hard-fought battle to navigate regulatory systems and win consumer acceptance. “Somebody’s got to be first and I’m glad it was them and not me,” says James West, a geneticist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, who co-founded AgGenetics, a start-up company in Nashville that is engineering cattle for the dairy and beef industries. “If they had failed, it might have killed the engineered livestock industry for a generation,” he says.

Swimming upstream

AquaBounty’s gruelling path from scientific discovery to market terrified others working in animal biotechnology, and almost put the company out of business on several occasions. Scientists first demonstrated the fast-growing fish in 1989. They gave it a growth-hormone gene from Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), along with genetic regulatory elements from a third species, the ocean pout (Zoarces americanus). The genetic modifications enable the salmon to produce a continuous low level of growth hormone.

AquaBounty formed around the technology in the early 1990s and approached regulators in the United States soon after. It then spent almost 25 years in regulatory limbo. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the salmon for consumption in November 2015, and Canadian authorities came to the same decision six months later. Neither country requires the salmon to be labelled as genetically engineered.

But unlike in Canada, political battles in the United States have stalled the salmon’s entry into the marketplace. The law setting out the US government’s budget for fiscal year 2017 includes a provision that instructs the FDA to forbid the sale of transgenic salmon until it has developed a programme to inform consumers that they are buying a genetically engineered product. Senator Lisa Murkowski (Republican, Alaska), who inserted the provision, has called AquaBounty’s salmon “fake fish”.

Activists in both the United States and Canada have demanded that regulators reconsider their decisions, and some have filed lawsuits. The Center for Food Safety, an environmental-advocacy group in Washington DC, sued the FDA last year in an attempt to overturn its salmon decision. The group says the agency lacks the legal authority to oversee genetically engineered animals, and that it made its decision without fully considering the environmental risks.

The announcement that AquaBounty’s fish are landing on Canadian tables is sure to dredge up opposition, says Stotish. He argues that the genetically engineered fish are good for the economy — attractive because they can be grown near metropolitan areas rather than being flown in from overseas, bringing salmon-farming jobs back to the United States and Canada. And because the AquaBounty salmon are grown in tanks, he adds, they don’t encounter many of the pathogens and parasites that often afflict salmon raised in sea cages.

“I think the larger market is viewing it as a more predictable, sustainable source of salmon,” Stotish says. “As a first sale this was very positive and encouraging for us.”